Most Hybrid Vehicles Not as Cost-Effective as They Seem, Reports Edmunds.com

Someone here (Gloftoe?) said this awhile ago.






I know from the number of hippies around here who have them something has to be wrong, they cant get anything right.

Blah, blah, blah.

If y'all are serious bout decreasing the funding of wahabi terrorism we must use hybrid or non internal combustion transportation.
If 100,000,000 cars got only 5 miles per gallon more efficient that would surpass in one year the available ANWAR supply.
Hybrids get better than 5mph.
A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way (The price of fuel is based on the supply and demand of future contracts. Not on the raw material. It is quite simple for multinationals and the hedge funds they sponsor to manipulate the price of fuel. This recent experiment has been corruption central).
Flood the market with a billion new contracts and you will be paying 75 cent per gallon fuel next week.
One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts.
Actual capitalism anyone?

Quoted: Blah, blah, blah. If y'all are serious bout decreasing the funding of wahabi terrorism we must use hybrid or non internal combustion transportation. If 100,000,000 cars got only 5 miles per gallon more efficient that would surpass in one year the available ANWAR supply. Hybrids get better than 5mph. A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way (The price of fuel is based on the supply and demand of future contracts. Not on the raw material. It is quite simple for multinationals and the hedge funds they sponsor to manipulate the price of fuel. This recent experiment has been corruption central). Flood the market with a billion new contracts and you will be paying 75 cent per gallon fuel next week. One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts. Actual capitalism anyone?

Yes, I am all for actual capitalism...which involves giving people what they WANT to buy, not what you think they SHOULD buy.  When non-gas-using cars become cheaper than gas-using cars, people will want them.  Not before.

deleted my figures were wrong and I don't have time to redo it.

I don't understand how they save anything. Even if you give them away, they are more energy intensive to make and they are more energy intensive to maintain (battery replacement). If you have to plug it in to charge the emissions just move from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Coal emissions are horrific.

If you add in how much more industrious you have to be to own one then depending on your choice of work you also have to take into account the additional burden your industriousness places on natural resources.

I haven't seen a coherent analysis that feels trustworthy, but it just doesn't pass my "goofy test".

They are the least "green" thing imaginable.

aa

Quoted: I don't understand how they save anything. Even if you give them away, they are more energy intensive to make and they are more energy intensive to maintain (battery replacement). If you have to plug it in to charge the emissions just move from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Coal emissions are horrific. If you add in how much more industrious you have to be to own one then depending on your choice of work you also have to take into account the additional burden your industriousness places on natural resources. I haven't seen a coherent analysis that feels trustworthy, but it just doesn't pass my "goofy test". They are the least "green" thing imaginable. aa

ah yes but people "feel" that they are doing something by buying one and that's what's most important to them.

Quoted: Quoted: Blah, blah, blah. If y'all are serious bout decreasing the funding of wahabi terrorism we must use hybrid or non internal combustion transportation. If 100,000,000 cars got only 5 miles per gallon more efficient that would surpass in one year the available ANWAR supply. Hybrids get better than 5mph. A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way (The price of fuel is based on the supply and demand of future contracts. Not on the raw material. It is quite simple for multinationals and the hedge funds they sponsor to manipulate the price of fuel. This recent experiment has been corruption central). Flood the market with a billion new contracts and you will be paying 75 cent per gallon fuel next week. One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts. Actual capitalism anyone? Yes, I am all for actual capitalism...which involves giving people what they WANT to buy, not what you think they SHOULD buy.  When non-gas-using cars become cheaper than gas-using cars, people will want them.  Not before.

Roger.
But, just the mention that every car in the U.S. would get a free hybrid upgrade via a one time tax would send those boys in the merc dumpin those poor excuse for capitalism, non raw material based, easily manipulated futures contracts that decide the price of fuel.
You wouldn't even have to go through with the tax or the hybrid subsidy to get the desired effect (to show what a fraud that prices based on supply and demand of abstract contracts, as opposed to the raw material, is).
You'd be paying 75 cents per gallon next week.

Quoted: I don't understand how they save anything. Even if you give them away, they are more energy intensive to make and they are more energy intensive to maintain (battery replacement). If you have to plug it in to charge the emissions just move from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Coal emissions are horrific. If you add in how much more industrious you have to be to own one then depending on your choice of work you also have to take into account the additional burden your industriousness places on natural resources. I haven't seen a coherent analysis that feels trustworthy, but it just doesn't pass my "goofy test". They are the least "green" thing imaginable. aa

Battery replacement is a total red herring.  The battery in a Prius is warrantied for 8 years or 100,000 miles.  I have a seven year old Ford Taurus with 120,000 miles that is currently worth about $1,200.  No one is going to replace batteries in these hybrids.  After 8 years/100,000 miles very few cars are worth much of anything anyway.

Hybrids will save some people a significant amount of money; it all depends upon use.  The Edmunds article is standard Detroit boilerplate.  The braintrust in Detroit is about to get smacked upside the head AGAIN by the Japanese and they just can't get it.  The fact that there are waiting lists for new hybrids while the usual Detroit junk sits on showroom floors (while customers wait for the next round of giveaways) is something that Detroit will never understand until the day they finally go under.

I'll be buying a new Prius this year.  I know several people who own them and they are turning out to be great cars.  For myself, with my 72 mile daily commute, I will be saving money, but even if I DIDN'T save money I'd STILL be interested in buying one because I'm just sick and tired of being ass raped by the oil companies.

I'm also interested in changing the direction my money is going.  Instead of sending it to the dysfunctional regimes which control the world's oil suppy: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc. I'll spend my bucks in Japan, Thank you.

Quoted: Blah, blah, blah.

Very kind of you to summarize your post.

A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way...

I think oil is traded on the NYMEX. CME does ethanol, but that the only energy product I saw listed at their site.

One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts.

You pro-hybrid types ignore the materials that go into hybrids. Rare earth elements are needed in copious amounts to put together a hybrid. Guess who owns 90% of the rare earth market? China. Like we need to tie our well-being to China any more than it is?

Quoted: Battery replacement is a total red herring.  The battery in a Prius is warrantied for 8 years or 100,000 miles.  I have a seven year old Ford Taurus with 120,000 miles that is currently worth about $1,200.  No one is going to replace batteries in these hybrids.  After 8 years/100,000 miles very few cars are worth much of anything anyway.

That may be true, but I've spoken to a man who claimed to be a tech at a Toyota dealership- he said they replaced a lot more batteries than Toyota would lead you to believe, and they were thousands of dollars(I want to say $3500, but it's been a while so don't hold me to taht).  He also said that replacing individual parts of the battery is often not an option.

I'd be surprised if Toyota was making any money on the sale of the Prius, then you factor in the cost of warrantying the batteries... it doesn't work.  All the non-hybrid sales are subsidizing the hybrid sales.  If they wanted to sell hybrid everything, they would have to seriously raise the price.

I'll be buying a new Prius this year.  I know several people who own them and they are turning out to be great cars.  For myself, with my 72 mile daily commute, I will be saving money, but even if I DIDN'T save money I'd STILL be interested in buying one because I'm just sick and tired of being ass raped by the oil companies. I'm also interested in changing the direction my money is going.  Instead of sending it to the dysfunctional regimes which control the world's oil suppy: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc. I'll spend my bucks in Japan, Thank you.

Now that's something I can understand, but you're still buying gasoline.  If you actually get the EPA rating of 55(51/60), you're using 18gal to drive 1000 miles.  On the other hand, while my diesel only gets 46(42/49), I am using 50% domestically produced biodiesel, so I use 11gal of petroleum fuel(diesel, which is also less energy intensive to refine than gasoline) to drive the same distance.  And there's no worries about batteries, and VW actually makes money selling the car.

I think hybrids may be viable at some point, but not yet.  I guess some people would say the same about diesel and biodiesel.  I think diesel is a much simpler option that is readily available- just look at Europe.  Diesels are expected to over-take gassers in sales this year, and hybrids are almost non-existant.  IMO, the hybrid is fine as long as it stays a niche.

My opinion is that diesel and lean burn gasoline technology will prove more cost efficient in the short run than will hybrid technology. All three are probably bridge technologies to fuel cell vehicles. YMMV.

Male hybrid driver =

Quoted: Quoted: Battery replacement is a total red herring.  The battery in a Prius is warrantied for 8 years or 100,000 miles.  I have a seven year old Ford Taurus with 120,000 miles that is currently worth about $1,200.  No one is going to replace batteries in these hybrids.  After 8 years/100,000 miles very few cars are worth much of anything anyway. That may be true, but I've spoken to a man who claimed to be a tech at a Toyota dealership- he said they replaced a lot more batteries than Toyota would lead you to believe, and they were thousands of dollars(I want to say $3500, but it's been a while so don't hold me to taht).  He also said that replacing individual parts of the battery is often not an option. I'd be surprised if Toyota was making any money on the sale of the Prius, then you factor in the cost of warrantying the batteries... it doesn't work.  All the non-hybrid sales are subsidizing the hybrid sales.  If they wanted to sell hybrid everything, they would have to seriously raise the price. I'll be buying a new Prius this year.  I know several people who own them and they are turning out to be great cars.  For myself, with my 72 mile daily commute, I will be saving money, but even if I DIDN'T save money I'd STILL be interested in buying one because I'm just sick and tired of being ass raped by the oil companies. I'm also interested in changing the direction my money is going.  Instead of sending it to the dysfunctional regimes which control the world's oil suppy: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc. I'll spend my bucks in Japan, Thank you. Now that's something I can understand, but you're still buying gasoline.  If you actually get the EPA rating of 55(51/60), you're using 18gal to drive 1000 miles.  On the other hand, while my diesel only gets 46(42/49), I am using 50% domestically produced biodiesel, so I use 11gal of petroleum fuel(diesel, which is also less energy intensive to refine than gasoline) to drive the same distance.  And there's no worries about batteries, and VW actually makes money selling the car. I think hybrids may be viable at some point, but not yet.  I guess some people would say the same about diesel and biodiesel.  I think diesel is a much simpler option that is readily available- just look at Europe.  Diesels are expected to over-take gassers in sales this year, and hybrids are almost non-existant.  IMO, the hybrid is fine as long as it stays a niche.

Diesel engines are part of the answer.  The problems for them right now are distrubution and a lack of appealling vehicle types.  On my commute there are only a couple of "gas stations" that have diesel pumps.  There are also not many very appealling vehicles offered in the U.S. market with diesel engines.  I got into a little bit of an argument with a coworker over diesels just this week.  Bottom line for me is that diesel engine powered cars have been around for a long time.  I've kown lots of people who have had diesel powered vehicles.  No one that I can recall has ever been happy with their diesel vehicle.  Ironically, the coworker with whom I was having this discussion actually had owned a diesel powered pick-up truck at one time and HE wasn't happy with his truck either!  Yet he was trying to convince me that I should think about diesels!

Another thing to consider when arguing the cost savings angle is this.  Whether or not a hybrid will save you money depends upon what vehicle would be an acceptable substitute for you if you did NOT buy the hybrid.  For me, if I weren't to buy the Prius I wouldn't buy another Taurus (Ford 500).  My 1999 Taurus didn't turn out to be such a great value for the dollar because it has had a history of bad brakes and has had many many brake jobs as a result.  Originally, I really had wanted a Honda Accord, but I didn't buy one because it was more expensive than the Taurus and there wasn't a Honda dealer conveniently located to me.  This turned out to be a mistake.  I SHOULD have bought an Accord anyway and then figured out how to get back and forth from the nearest dealership.  Anyway, to make a long story short, my alternative vehicle to the Prius would be an Accord.  Not some cheapo Detroit POS bought in faith in false economy.  I've learned my lesson.

Truth is, the Prius seems to be a very good car.  I know three people who have been driving them with no problems and several people who have posted on arfcom are getting excellent service from their's as well.  The Prius' wheelbase is only 2" shorter than my Taurus, it has almost the same HP, carries the same number of people, has more usable cargo space and will probably get double the gas milage.  There is no doubt in my mind that it is made better than my Taurus.

It's funny that you view it as a "niche" car.  The truth is, it's Detroit that has been relegated to making niche vehicles what whith their fascination with the "rebirth" of the muscle car, etc.

At any rate, this isn't any attempt to flame anybody.  I just think that there seems to be an irrational resistance to the hybrid technology.  I don't understand that.  I think it's cool as heck.

Quoted: At any rate, this isn't any attempt to flame anybody.  I just think that there seems to be an irrational resistance to the hybrid technology.  I don't understand that.  I think it's cool as heck.

I believe you are mistaken in your belief that there is an "irrational resistance to the hybrid technology".

The resistance is totally understandable.  It is cost driven.

It simply isn't cost effective to go to hybrid technology at this time.  It is still too expensive compared to gasoline powered cars.

It's all about cost.  That is called capitalism.

Quoted: Diesel engines are part of the answer.  The problems for them right now are distrubution and a lack of appealling vehicle types.  On my commute there are only a couple of "gas stations" that have diesel pumps.  There are also not many very appealling vehicles offered in the U.S. market with diesel engines.  I got into a little bit of an argument with a coworker over diesels just this week.  Bottom line for me is that diesel engine powered cars have been around for a long time.  I've kown lots of people who have had diesel powered vehicles.  No one that I can recall has ever been happy with their diesel vehicle.  Ironically, the coworker with whom I was having this discussion actually had owned a diesel powered pick-up truck at one time and HE wasn't happy with his truck either!  Yet he was trying to convince me that I should think about diesels! Another thing to consider when arguing the cost savings angle is this.  Whether or not a hybrid will save you money depends upon what vehicle would be an acceptable substitute for you if you did NOT buy the hybrid.  For me, if I weren't to buy the Prius I wouldn't buy another Taurus (Ford 500).  My 1999 Taurus didn't turn out to be such a great value for the dollar because it has had a history of bad brakes and has had many many brake jobs as a result.  Originally, I really had wanted a Honda Accord, but I didn't buy one because it was more expensive than the Taurus and there wasn't a Honda dealer conveniently located to me.  This turned out to be a mistake.  I SHOULD have bought an Accord anyway and then figured out how to get back and forth from the nearest dealership.  Anyway, to make a long story short, my alternative vehicle to the Prius would be an Accord.  Not some cheapo Detroit POS bought in faith in false economy.  I've learned my lesson. Truth is, the Prius seems to be a very good car.  I know three people who have been driving them with no problems and several people who have posted on arfcom are getting excellent service from their's as well.  The Prius' wheelbase is only 2" shorter than my Taurus, it has almost the same HP, carries the same number of people, has more usable cargo space and will probably get double the gas milage.  There is no doubt in my mind that it is made better than my Taurus. It's funny that you view it as a "niche" car.  The truth is, it's Detroit that has been relegated to making niche vehicles what whith their fascination with the "rebirth" of the muscle car, etc. At any rate, this isn't any attempt to flame anybody.  I just think that there seems to be an irrational resistance to the hybrid technology.  I don't understand that.  I think it's cool as heck.

Diesel pickup eh? That I assume was a domestic (Ford, Chevy or Dodge probably).
Buy a German diesel. I have zero complaints with my Jetta TDI. As I understand it, theres a waitlist to get one. Also, diesel itself is a very good option, look at Europe. The fact our auto manufacturers cant get it right is no indication its not a viable alternative, as Europe has shown. But thats no hidden secret, theres very little our auto manufacturers can get right these days......

The Japanese hybrids were designed and engineered for the purpose of reducing smog in Tokyo and other Japanese cities that have millions of cars in each.  They weren't designed for max fuel economy, they just get decent MPG ratings as a by-poroduct of the hybrid desgin used to cut smog.

They've just been pressed into service as "gas mizers" because people here in the USA are less concered about how much smog they put out when it comes to deciding what car to buy.  So to sell cars, the US marketing branches hyped the MPG over less smog.  

It's safe to say if Honda or Toyota designed a car from the get go for fuel-efficency, it would kick some serious tail, but they don't really need to.  They do need the hybrid for the Japanese market, and they can "con"vince most Americans to buy them as gas mizers.  Let's face it, most Americans are willing to buy junk, so it's pretty easy to sell to the general public something that appears one way, but was really made for something else.

The fact that most of the discussion here is focused on fuel means that they've called it right.  The hybrids aren't the perfect solution, but they already had them so that's how they're trying to market them.

I've never believed the hype

The Lexus RS hybrid costs $12k more than the standard RS. You'll never make up for that in fuel.

Consumer Reports has a good article on actual vs. claimed hybred milage called "Hybrid Hype" - your better off with a diesel.

Quoted: I've never believed the hype

Obviously not, and neither have several other people that have pointed out some of the inconsistancies with that hype.  But ARFCOM members aren't John Q Public either.  

It's been said for quite some time they don't make econmic sense. They are sold at a loss to promote technology and make the greenies who buy them feel good about themselves.

I suspect that hybrids make economic sense if you drive a lot.  Two of my three cars (including the Suburban) get 4,000 miles or less on them each year.  Also quite a few hybrid models are not engineered to get significantly better fuel economy but to get more power from a smaller gas engine (this is Honda's approach).

GunLvr

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Blah, blah, blah. If y'all are serious bout decreasing the funding of wahabi terrorism we must use hybrid or non internal combustion transportation. If 100,000,000 cars got only 5 miles per gallon more efficient that would surpass in one year the available ANWAR supply. Hybrids get better than 5mph. A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way (The price of fuel is based on the supply and demand of future contracts. Not on the raw material. It is quite simple for multinationals and the hedge funds they sponsor to manipulate the price of fuel. This recent experiment has been corruption central). Flood the market with a billion new contracts and you will be paying 75 cent per gallon fuel next week. One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts. Actual capitalism anyone? Yes, I am all for actual capitalism...which involves giving people what they WANT to buy, not what you think they SHOULD buy.  When non-gas-using cars become cheaper than gas-using cars, people will want them.  Not before. Roger. But, just the mention that every car in the U.S. would get a free hybrid upgrade via a one time tax would send those boys in the merc dumpin those poor excuse for capitalism, non raw material based, easily manipulated futures contracts that decide the price of fuel. You wouldn't even have to go through with the tax or the hybrid subsidy to get the desired effect (to show what a fraud that prices based on supply and demand of abstract contracts, as opposed to the raw material, is). You'd be paying 75 cents per gallon next week.

If you look at actual mpg vs the EPA's stupid set up, you'll see the only time you really save gas is when you buy a hybrid truck or SUV.

Considering that the US dollar is now supported by the price of oil, we should want oil prices to RISE, not fall. The more oil costs, the more dollars that foriegn governments must keep as reserve currency (in order to pay for oil). If oil prices fall, those foreign governments can deversify their reserve holdings to Euros. More dollars in circulation = devalued dollar = bad news for the US economy.

Just to keep things honest, consider my 2000 Dodge Neon.

Neon: Purchased new for $14,000 (bone stock, no options).
Prius: $21,000 (bone stock, no options, MSRP)

Neon: No major problems in 160,000 miles. Most I've spent in one month was $400 last month for brakes, timing belt, serpentine belt, timing belt tensioner, water pump, and serpentine belt tensioner. Other items in 6 years include brakes, tires, oil/filter, battery and thermostat. Let's overestimate (big time) and use $2000 as a 6 year maintenance cost.
Prius: Assume no maintanence whatsoever.

Neon: Average EPA city/hwy 32mpg.
Prius: Average EPA city/hwy 55mpg.

Rounded up, my average mileage over 6 years was 27,000 miles a year.
Neon: 27,000 / 32 = 843.75 gallons of gas required.
Prius: 27,000 / 55 = 490.91 gallons of gas required.

Assume a ridiculous gas price of $3.00 a gallon.

Neon: $2,531.25 a year, $15,187.50 over 6 years.
Prius: $1772.73 a year. $10,636.38 over 6 years.

So to calculate cost, let's use:
Purchase Price + Maintanence + Six Years of Gas:
Neon: $14,000 + $2,000 + $15,187.50 = $31,187.50
Prius: $21,000 + $0 + $10,636 = $31,636
-----


I want you all to look at that carefully. Consider how ridiculous some of that was. I overestimated my  maintenance/repair costs. I assumed the Prius would need NONE. Not even tires or brakes. I used a ridiculous figure of $3.00 a gallon for gas. With my heavy driving (by anyone's standard at 27,000 miles a year) it would take about 6 years to break even, and that's assuming the Prius needs nothing - I repeat NOTHING done to it in that time.

At $3.00 a gallon, you're not even saving $1,000 a year in gas purchasing a hybrid in my scenario.

Buy whatever car you want, but do it because you just plain like the car. Don't kid yourself about saving tons of money.  

Quoted: Considering that the US dollar is now supported by the price of oil, we should want oil prices to RISE, not fall. The more oil costs, the more dollars that foriegn governments must keep as reserve currency (in order to pay for oil). If oil prices fall, those foreign governments can deversify their reserve holdings to Euros. More dollars in circulation = devalued dollar = bad news for the US economy.

Dude,

 You need to google ' Iran oil bourse '

sorry
rj

Overall cost may be more, but they do save gas, I'll give them that.

Quoted: Overall cost may be more, but they do save gas, I'll give them that.

Over a 1 ton truck, sure. Over a Neon (or comparable econobox), it's less than $1000 a year, or less than $83 a month, if you prefer.



EDIT: Assuming you drive almost 30,000 miles a year. The saving are even less, if you're normal.

Here's the funny thing about hybrid cars.

Fuel cells require platinum.

Platinum is already more scarce than oil relative to the demand.


You figure out what will happen.

Quoted: Blah, blah, blah. If y'all are serious bout decreasing the funding of wahabi terrorism we must use hybrid or non internal combustion transportation. If 100,000,000 cars got only 5 miles per gallon more efficient that would surpass in one year the available ANWAR supply. Hybrids get better than 5mph. A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way (The price of fuel is based on the supply and demand of future contracts. Not on the raw material. It is quite simple for multinationals and the hedge funds they sponsor to manipulate the price of fuel. This recent experiment has been corruption central). Flood the market with a billion new contracts and you will be paying 75 cent per gallon fuel next week. One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts. Actual capitalism anyone?

The fed need not make any sort of comitment.  That is not their job

What needs to happen is a reduction of subsidies to the oil companies and US automanufactueres and allowing domestic oil production.

Its all pretty fucking simple.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand how they save anything. Even if you give them away, they are more energy intensive to make and they are more energy intensive to maintain (battery replacement). If you have to plug it in to charge the emissions just move from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Coal emissions are horrific. If you add in how much more industrious you have to be to own one then depending on your choice of work you also have to take into account the additional burden your industriousness places on natural resources. I haven't seen a coherent analysis that feels trustworthy, but it just doesn't pass my "goofy test". They are the least "green" thing imaginable. aa Battery replacement is a total red herring.  The battery in a Prius is warrantied for 8 years or 100,000 miles.  I have a seven year old Ford Taurus with 120,000 miles that is currently worth about $1,200.  No one is going to replace batteries in these hybrids.  After 8 years/100,000 miles very few cars are worth much of anything anyway. Hybrids will save some people a significant amount of money; it all depends upon use.  The Edmunds article is standard Detroit boilerplate.  The braintrust in Detroit is about to get smacked upside the head AGAIN by the Japanese and they just can't get it.  The fact that there are waiting lists for new hybrids while the usual Detroit junk sits on showroom floors (while customers wait for the next round of giveaways) is something that Detroit will never understand until the day they finally go under. I'll be buying a new Prius this year.  I know several people who own them and they are turning out to be great cars.  For myself, with my 72 mile daily commute, I will be saving money, but even if I DIDN'T save money I'd STILL be interested in buying one because I'm just sick and tired of being ass raped by the oil companies. I'm also interested in changing the direction my money is going.  Instead of sending it to the dysfunctional regimes which control the world's oil suppy: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc. I'll spend my bucks in Japan, Thank you.

I would think it to be a better idea to spend your money on quality made here by Americans for American companies.  

Yeah, Yeah I know, "when American comapnies start making quality I will buy it"  BullShit!!  You need to change your screenname to KoolAid because you believe all of the propaganda that the Japs have been feeding you.  

All cars are Crap!  They are just disposable garbage anymore.  

Your 72 mile commute won't save you all that much.  My fathers Prius only gets 3 miles more per gallon than my mothers mini van on the highway.  I would have to believe with that distance daily it would have to include a large amount of highway miles.  They Suck On The Highway.  Around town, Yes they kick ass.  But I don't do enough driving around town to make a difference.  

The technology is still new.  When they perfect it everyone will have one.  But for now there in "LIMITED" production becuase they don't want to fix their mistakes on a full production scale.  People like you or my father are just proving the cars and apparently are willing to deal with the problems that occur.  In his case it was the Gov't hand out of $2400 tax break for driving it.  

Back to the Capitalism aspect, Why is the Gov't giving a break to drive these things if they are so good on fuel and saving a ton of money just to use them?  I would think if they were so good you would WANT to have it.  It should pay for itself, Right?  Not yet.  

Lets see where they are in 5 years.

Quoted: Quoted: Overall cost may be more, but they do save gas, I'll give them that. Over a 1 ton truck, sure. Over a Neon (or comparable econobox), it's less than $1000 a year, or less than $83 a month, if you prefer. EDIT: Assuming you drive almost 30,000 miles a year. The saving are even less, if you're normal.

Exactly. And your calculations are way skewed in favor of the hybrid at that.

I drive a 4-cyl Accord. It gets the same milage as the Hybrid Accord and costs almost $10k less .

Of course the hybrid is a 6-cyl and has a bit more horsepower, so I ran the calculations between an EX 6-cyl Accord and the Hybrid. Basically, I came out with this:

Assuming both cars driven 15,000 miles per year and gas is $2.50, and all other maintenance costs being equal, it would take almost 20 years for the hybrid to break even with the standard 6-cyl EX Accord.

As I've said before, we need to develop 5.0L gas engines that get 50mi/gal

Quoted: Overall cost may be more, but they do save gas, I'll give them that.

Not if you add in all the gas it takes to manufacture/service/recycle the batteries. You are simply shifting the energy use from manufacture to consumer.  In a thread awhile back I posted a comparison of the Honda Civic to the Civic Hybrid.  Turns out the gasser Civic is more echo friendly in the long run.  Hybrids my get there someday, but until then they are kind of like solar cells.

Quoted: As I've said before, we need to develop 5.0L gas engines that get 50mi/gal

The University of Wisconsin Madison has apparently done it.

www.news.wisc.edu/1588.html

I was studying engineering there for a short while when they were working on that Suburban. I wasn't on the future car team, but a guy who was said that with the technologies that they used they estimated that for GM to make production vehicles with this capability that the price of the car would have to go up by only a couple thousand dollars.

I don't know how true that is. Just what he told me. Still interesting that they were able to make a Suburban get 60+ mpg!

Quoted: Quoted: Blah, blah, blah. Very kind of you to summarize your post. A real federal commitment to non internal combustion would smack the Chicago Merc upside the face in a well deserved way... I think oil is traded on the NYMEX. CME does ethanol, but that the only energy product I saw listed at their site. One or the other brother. Non internal combustion commitments to correct futures contracts manipulation or flood the "market" with more contracts. You pro-hybrid types ignore the materials that go into hybrids. Rare earth elements are needed in copious amounts to put together a hybrid. Guess who owns 90% of the rare earth market? China. Like we need to tie our well-being to China any more than it is?

Exactly.  What about the rare-earth metals that COME OUT of a Hybrid when your replace the batteries or "trash the car because it's now old and worthless" like the poster above.  Those 38 NiMH battery modules aren't what I'd call 'environmentally friendly', and contain a toxic and flammable electrolyte.  They're recyclable, but I have a strange feeling the majority will end up in landfills.

Mike

Quoted: Exactly.  What about the rare-earth metals that COME OUT of a Hybrid when your replace the batteries or "trash the car because it's now old and worthless" like the poster above.  Those 38 NiMH battery modules aren't what I'd call 'environmentally friendly', and contain a toxic and flammable electrolyte.  They're recyclable, but I have a strange feeling the majority will end up in landfills.

Remember, oil is biodegradable.

Quoted: Quoted: Considering that the US dollar is now supported by the price of oil, we should want oil prices to RISE, not fall. The more oil costs, the more dollars that foriegn governments must keep as reserve currency (in order to pay for oil). If oil prices fall, those foreign governments can deversify their reserve holdings to Euros. More dollars in circulation = devalued dollar = bad news for the US economy. Dude,  You need to google ' Iran oil bourse ' sorry

I know exactly what that is...it is not going to happen, the United States will not allow it. One way of another, oil will always be traded in PetroDollars. The United States economy relies on this simple fact.

Quoted: Exactly.  What about the rare-earth metals that COME OUT of a Hybrid when your replace the batteries or "trash the car because it's now old and worthless" like the poster above.  Those 38 NiMH battery modules aren't what I'd call 'environmentally friendly', and contain a toxic and flammable electrolyte.  They're recyclable, but I have a strange feeling the majority will end up in landfills. Mike

I have a feeling most people will be afraid to touch the batteries, so they will be removed at the shop and returned for a deposit and recycling.  But I'm curious what it takes to "recycle" a battery, in terms of energy, material, cost, etc.

I like how they state the 'cost of ownership' is so high with a Hybrid, but fail to explain exactly HOW it's higher.

I had a hybrid (Honda Insight) for almost two years.  My cost of maintenance only included putting gas in it (I got at least 550 miles out of 10 gallons) and changing the oil and filter a few times.  I'd estimate $100-150 in oil and filters.   THAT'S IT.  

I drove from Austin, TX to Los Angeles on 23 gallons of gas.  Most cars couldn't make it out of Texas on that.  Imagine a 1400 mile trip, then 1400 miles back, paying for gas at $3/gal out of your pocket in a vehicle that got you 68mpg, and one that got you 20mpg.  

Anyway, if you want to whip out your calculator and come up with subjective 'costs' of owning a hybrid, and calculate how much you'll actually save in $ amount, I think you're only focusing on one point of owning a hybrid - getting better gas mileage.   There are other advantages, depending on your tastes in transportation.  I really REALLY liked not having to fill up EVERY WEEK.  Heck, my gas bill (I use a gas card) got as low as $17 one month.  THAT is pretty nice.  

Anyway, if you don't like hybrids... DON'T BUY ONE.  

I was initially tempted by a hybrid last Fall when I bought a new car.  They even seemed to be ideal for my style of driving, especially with the regenerative braking.  Then I did some research.  No need to do all the complex calculations, either.  SOmetimes something really simple overrides all the details.  Note that I live in Florida.  It gets hot here.  And humid.  In the vehicle I was considering - and, I can't say if this is true of all the others, but it likely is - in order to run the air conditioner, one needs to run the gas engine to turn the a/c compressor.  I would have had an hybrid for about 3 or 4 months out of the year.  The rest of the time it owuld just have been a 4 cylinder engine, and the electric motor's help would have been a wash in terms of economy.    Waste!  I have a v6 and am pleased with it.  No, I don't have to impress hippies.  Helping the arabs?  The hybrids still use gas.  The arabs can stay there, and I'll stay here.  Come here to bother me and you'll meet the virgins with a .45-70 in your gut - the virgins won't do you much good.

The VW Lupo diesel is rated about 80mpg.  In fact, I think VW forced Honda to add a disclaimer to their "most fuel efficient car" claims because of this.  The Lupo even has a backseat, not that I'd want to ride back there for a couple hours, but it's there.  Of course, I'm sure the Insight would SPANK the Lupo in 0-60(assuming the Insight has full battery).


A general comment, not aimed at anyone here: I'm not anti-hybrid, I just don't like seeing hybrid this and hybrid that, when right now I think diesel would be equally efficient without the complexity and cost.  And unlike hybrids which are pretty rare, just about every car sold in Europe has a couple diesel options that could easily be transplanted into American cars.  A Focus that gets 50mpg and performs about the same as the base model we already have?  Already exists.  A Mercedes E-class that performs better than the E320 and gets 40mpg?  Already exists.  BMW 3er coupe that performs similar to the 330, but gets close to 40mpg highway?  Already exists.

I have no problem with anyone buying a fuel efficient vehicle, whether it be a diesel, hybrid, or a whatever.  Or even a gas guzzler.  It's your car, not mine.  I just know that most people hear all about hybrids and know nothing about diesels, so I try to let them know what's out there.  I think a lot of people would be interested in more efficient options in any vehicle if they knew it existed.  Who's going to ask for a diesel car if all the only thing they know about diesels is that school busses stink?

Whats the break even point for a Civic Hybred Vs Civic (gas) with gas at $2.59.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand how they save anything. Even if you give them away, they are more energy intensive to make and they are more energy intensive to maintain (battery replacement). If you have to plug it in to charge the emissions just move from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Coal emissions are horrific. If you add in how much more industrious you have to be to own one then depending on your choice of work you also have to take into account the additional burden your industriousness places on natural resources. I haven't seen a coherent analysis that feels trustworthy, but it just doesn't pass my "goofy test". They are the least "green" thing imaginable. aa Battery replacement is a total red herring.  The battery in a Prius is warrantied for 8 years or 100,000 miles.

When the battery pack needs replaced you scrap the car if its not covered under warranty.  8 years is 2-4 times as long as most peoiple drive a new car anyway.

Nuclear Power and Lithium Polymer/ brushless motor electric cars FTW!!!!!111!!!11!

Quoted: Consumer Reports has a good article on actual vs. claimed hybred milage called "Hybrid Hype" - your better off with a diesel.

Unfortunatly my state banned the sale of new diesel passenger cars several years ago. Plus deisel cost more than unleaded gas locally.

Quoted: I don't understand how they save anything. Even if you give them away, they are more energy intensive to make and they are more energy intensive to maintain (battery replacement). If you have to plug it in to charge the emissions just move from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Coal emissions are horrific. If you add in how much more industrious you have to be to own one then depending on your choice of work you also have to take into account the additional burden your industriousness places on natural resources. I haven't seen a coherent analysis that feels trustworthy, but it just doesn't pass my "goofy test". They are the least "green" thing imaginable. aa

Yeah.  If you want to cut down on fossil fuel consumption buy some fucking Seventh Generation laundry detergent.  At least it uses vegetable oil as an outright replacement for petrochemicals unlike a hybrid that relocates the energy cost elsewhere.


linkeroo

"If every household in the U.S. replaced just one bottle of 100 oz. ultra petroleum-based liquid laundry detergent with our 100 oz. vegetable based product, we could save 200,000 barrels of oil, enough to heat and cool 11,400 U.S. homes for a year!"

You don't have to buy a stupid vehicle that has a breakeven somewhere beyond its useful life to "make a difference".

Quoted: Whats the break even point for a Civic Hybred Vs Civic (gas) with gas at $2.59.

For city or highway or overall?   My 03 Civic gets 34/40  with the Hybrid version rated at around 45/50, I'm averaging 36 with mostly city driving)

Going with the 3 years and 45k miles (what mines at now) (hybrid @47MPG and the 2.59 price I'd have burned ~960 gallons instead of 1250, so ~$750 less.   At the time I bought mine I could have gotten an almost identical Hybrid for a grand more.   Don't think its that close anymore.    

Quoted: Here's the funny thing about hybrid cars. Fuel cells require platinum. Platinum is already more scarce than oil relative to the demand. You figure out what will happen.

Your point?  Hybrids don't have fuel cells in them.